aiqbench analysis
This paper establishes the computational complexity of critical security properties for deployed neural networks, such as backdoor detection and parameter fault tolerance. By mapping these verification tasks to specific levels of the polynomial hierarchy, it reveals that certifying safety against bit-flip attacks or radiation upsets is significantly harder than standard robustness certification. These findings provide a rigorous theoretical foundation for understanding the limits of automated verification in high-stakes AI systems.
Security Properties of Neural Networks as Decision Problems
arXiv:2609.39768v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Certifying a deployed neural network raises decision problems that the verification literature has not classified: whether the model carries a backdoor planted in its training data, whether a fault in its stored parameters can drive it into an unsafe state, whether its output leaks a private part of its input. We formalise eight such problems and classify what we can. The organising observation is a logical one. The function computed by a piecewise linear network, together with all its node values, is definable by a quantifier-free formula of real addition of size linear in the network, so a property of the network is a quantifier-alternation sentence, which Sontag's 1985 theorem places in the polynomial hierarchy at the level of its prefix. Membership results are thus corollaries, and the argument makes plain what they need: that the quantified objects are inputs rather than the network's own parameters. Non-interference, monotonicity and counterfactual fairness have exactly the complexity of network equivalence and of interval verification, all co-NP- complete over ReLU. Detection of backdoor triggers from a quantised alphabet is Sigma_2^P-complete, one level above robustness certification, so it does not reduce to polynomially many robustness queries unless the hierarchy collapses. Inversion resistance is co-NP-complete for every l_p metric, p a fixed positive integer. Quantifying over parameters instead of inputs - the fault model of bit-flip attacks, radiation upsets and analog accelerators - makes verification exists-R-complete already for networks of identity nodes, for which every previously studied problem is in P, and it stays so when each parameter is confined to a box of inverse-polynomial width; the corresponding safety question is forall-R-complete for ReLU.
Abstract:Certifying a deployed neural network raises decision problems that the verification literature has not classified: whether the model carries a backdoor planted in its training data, whether a fault in its stored parameters can drive it into an unsafe state, whether its output leaks a private part of its input. We formalise eight such problems and classify what we can. The organising observation is a logical one. The function computed by a piecewise linear network, together with all its node values, is definable by a quantifier-free formula of real addition of size linear in the network, so a property of the network is a quantifier-alternation sentence, which Sontag's 1985 theorem places in the polynomial hierarchy at the level of its prefix. Membership results are thus corollaries, and the argument makes plain what they need: that the quantified objects are inputs rather than the network's own parameters. Non-interference, monotonicity and counterfactual fairness have exactly the complexity of network equivalence and of interval verification, all co-NP- complete over ReLU. Detection of backdoor triggers from a quantised alphabet is Sigma_2^P-complete, one level above robustness certification, so it does not reduce to polynomially many robustness queries unless the hierarchy collapses. Inversion resistance is co-NP-complete for every l_p metric, p a fixed positive integer. Quantifying over parameters instead of inputs - the fault model of bit-flip attacks, radiation upsets and analog accelerators - makes verification exists-R-complete already for networks of identity nodes, for which every previously studied problem is in P, and it stays so when each parameter is confined to a box of inverse-polynomial width; the corresponding safety question is forall-R-complete for ReLU.
Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO); Computational Complexity (cs.CC); Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
F.1.3; F.4.1; I.2.6
arXiv:2609.39768 [cs.LO]
(or arXiv:2609.39768v1 [cs.LO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.39768 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 378 words
Related coverage

"I am an AI Safety Researcher"
LessWrong · Sep 23, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · Oct 8, 2026

Skydio CEO Adam Bry on why Silicon Valley shouldn’t draw red lines for drone use
The Verge · Jun 15, 2026